Does anyone believe Jim Courier was a greater claycourter than Federer/Djokovic?

In the same spirit as my thread comparing Djokovic and Wilander when Djoko had won only 2 slams, I would like to ask the numerologists in MTF if they think Courier is a greater claycourter than Federer and Djokovic because 2>1>0?

I always find Courier high up in lists comparing greats on clay because of his 2 titles in RG, but besides those what has he really acomplished on clay? I look at 5 clay titles in his whole career, I look at those draws and wonder what was going on with clay when his main rival on the surface was a very young Andre Agassi, one year I see he beats Todd Martin in R4, Edberg in QF and Stich in SF and finaly barely teenager Agassi in the 5 sets final. 3 serve and volleyers and one american who barely ever played on red clay and doesnt know how to move on the surface, really?

I watched the whole match against Agassi and I really wondered these 2 americans who cant properly move on clay and didnt grow up on the surface would match up against Djokovic who grew up on the surface and has beyond incredible movement, how come they are both consider greater claycourters than Djokovic?

Further more I would like to ask you if Courier would have a chanse to win RG in this era, not only that but would he win RG in Borg's era? You see, I am not trying to say players are better today than before, I am just saying Courier's era sucks, not Kuerten's or Borg's eras. Please dont bring up the raquet technology BS, Nadal would beat Courier with 90s raquet had he been born 15 years earlier and you know it.

Anyway, I will move on and give MTF numerologists some numbers aswell on clay:

As you see Courier only got the lead in one cathegory which is most RG titles, against Djokovic he leads in 2 cathegories (both RG and RG finals), keep in mind that Djokovic in his peak lost to Nadal and Federer before the final 4 times.

So, I would love to hear some counter arguments from all those who put Courier as nr6 or 7 as in the greatest claycourters of all time, will be interesting to hear what you have in mind.

All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

Re: Does anyone believe Jim Courier was a greater claycourter than Federer/Djokovic?

Even clay courts were pretty different back then.
Federer has had to face the best clay courter in history, same for Djokovic.
But Courier had much tougher draws at the Garros, considering how many great clay courter played that time.
I would say Federer is the best out of the 3, and until Djokovic does not have an RG title, I would say Courier is the 2nd one.

Even clay courts were pretty different back then.
Federer has had to face the best clay courter in history, same for Djokovic.
But Courier had much tougher draws at the Garros, considering how many great clay courter played that time.
I would say Federer is the best out of the 3, and until Djokovic does not have an RG title, I would say Courier is the 2nd one.

Why, not yet? Achievmentwise I understand, but now I am not talking about achievments. Just a simple question, is Djokovic a greater claycourter than Courier? Was Nadal a greater claycourter than Courier 2005 before he won RG? Was Federer better than Courier in 2009?

All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

Borg was probably more ahead of his generation than Courier, so that will make it closer. But Couriers forehand would be a hell of a lot bigger than any forehand in that era. So I would put my money on courier.

Borg was probably more ahead of his generation than Courier, so that will make it closer. But Couriers forehand would be a hell of a lot bigger than any forehand in that era. So I would put my money on courier.

You think Courier with a wooden raquet would have a forehand which could hurt Borg?

Nadal with 90s raquets wouldnt lose a set against Courier, Courier with 70s raquet wouldnt win a set against Borg and Nadal with 70s raquet would play endless 8 hour epics against Borg.....

All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

But when you look at clay achievements my rank by most impressive. For me it would be Federer>Courier>Djokovic

But djokovic is only 24, He might win 4rg (not that I'm putting money on that!)

You, are right. Federer wins against Courier not only because subjectively I think he is greater on clay but he has actually achieved alot more than Courier on this surface. Djokovic only wins because I think he is alot better than Courier, but with objective reasoning you cant say he has achieved more than Courier on clay.

However, I was asking for subjective analysis of their greatness on clay and not counting numbers.

All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

You think Courier with a wooden raquet would have a forehand which could hurt Borg?

I don't know would Borg have such a forehand with modern equipment? I thiink you can only say whose achievements are better/more impressive. Who would beat who is just too hard because of big changes every generation(hence I quoted AJ in that post).

I don't know would Borg have such a forehand with modern equipment? I thiink you can only say whose achievements are better/more impressive. Who would beat who is just too hard because of big changes every generation(hence I quoted AJ in that post).

AJ also says all greats would find a way in any era, I dont fully agree with that statement (Rosewall and Mcenroe would not find a way in the modern era, even Sampras doubtfully would achieve much, that is what I think atleast). However, I see absolutely no reason to question Borg's ability to learn a great forehand with 90s raquets or modern raquets, ofcourse it would be great and he would love to play in the modern grinding era of the 2000s, even if Djokovic and Nadal probably would give him a hell of a fight.

Anyway, Borg would beat Courier in any era on clay, that much I can say without any doubt.

All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.